Protest over Sheffield tennis club floodlight plans

NEWS: News.
NEWS: News.
Have your say

PLANS for floodlights at a Sheffield tennis club are set to be thrown out after more than 100 objections.

The scheme has been put forward by Dore & Totley Tennis Club, Devonshire Road, Dore.

The club wants to install lighting on three courts, using eight 9metre-high columns.

The courts and pavilion were built almost a decade ago – with one of the conditions being no floodlights be installed, to protect the amenity of neighbouring gardens.

Plans for floodlights were previously refused last year, due to the impact on people living next door.

The new application, to be considered by Sheffield Council’s city centre, south and east planning board members on Monday, has resulted in 38 individual letters of objection from residents and the area’s three councillors, plus a 74-signature protest petition.

A report to the board said objections were on the grounds of ‘loss of amenity to residents due to light and noise and that the columns will be too close to residential property and overbearing’.

Dore Village Society has also complained about the lighting ‘damaging the privacy and amenity of residents’.

The council said 32 of the petition signatories had also sent letters of objection.

Recommending the application is rejected, council planning officers said: “This is an application seeking to introduce floodlighting into a residential area with low levels of existing night-time illumination.

“It is considered they will cause light intrusion towards neighbouring properties and alter the evening/night-time character of the locality.

“It is also felt the additional activity from extra hours of play on the courts and activity within the clubhouse along with associated vehicle impacts is likely to represent a significant impact on residential amenity.”

■ A planning application to allow an MoT testing centre to continue trading has been resubmitted to Sheffield Council.

The scheme, for Meersbrook Garage, Meersbrook Road, was refused in January 2012 and an appeal to the Communities Secretary failed to overturn the decision.

Objectors say the business is unsuitable for a residential area and creates problems with noise and parking.

Planning officers have recommended refusal.